Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Townhall)   Barack Obama has little in common with any president our country has ever had. Hopefully, this Obama hiccup in history will be of short duration   (townhall.com) divider line 245
    More: Obvious, obama, First Lady Michelle Obama, President Dmitry Medvedev, Mount Rushmore, Louisiana Purchase, Brandenburg Gate, Harvard Law Review, Andrew Jackson  
•       •       •

2655 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Apr 2012 at 9:30 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



245 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-03 03:37:08 PM  

WombatControl: Philip Francis Queeg: Hey guess what? Enforcing the OSHA code and the plumbing code cost money. So does reviewing the proposed changes to ensure that added plumbing ties in properly to the public water and sewer systems. You know what else costs money? Sending inspectors out to verify that the contractor is installing the plumbing properly. Those government services need to be paid for.

So, you really want to argue that the government's costs of inspection is $10,000 per shower. And that's a perfectly acceptable, rational figure to you.

Have you ever worked with a plumbing inspector? They're on site for about 10 minutes. It's not the inspector who does the work, it's the contractor who does the installation that makes sure everything's to code.

The fact that you think that $10,000 is anywhere close to the cost of a simple plumbing inspection is a self-beclowning statement.

The shower is required to begin with out of concern for the health, safety and welfare of those who use the facility. The ability to clean oneself after the types of exercise and activities that take place in Physical Therapy are a health and safety issue.

Thanks to that $10,000 permitting process, that shower was never installed. The business couldn't afford it. By your own argument, the health and safety of those patients was made worse.

And had the government said that the therapist had to pay the $10,000 to install the single shower, the therapist would have gone out of business.

I get the impression that you're quite unfamiliar how this stuff works in the real world...


Guess what, friend? I know just a little bit about these issues. I'm a licensed Architect who's been practicing for 19 years. I know exactly what permit reviews and inspections consist of. I know how permit fees are calculated. I know what the intent of the codes is. In fact I am authorized to do my own code reviews for certain project types in the major city I live in. I know more about these issues than you ever will.

Now let me educate you a bit.

1. Ask your imaginary friend with the PT business what else was involved in installing the shower. Did the sewer or water service need upgrades? Were there other non-code compliant aspects of the facility that needed to be addressed? What was the construction budget for the project? You''ll find that the situation was much more complex than you believe, if this anecdote isn't apocryphal or the permit fee grossly exaggerated.

2. How exactly did your imaginary friend come to have an operating physical therapy facility without a shower to begin with? Did they renovate the space without permits? Did they fail to get a proper certificate of occupancy when they took the space and change the function to Physical therapy? You previously claimed that the shower was required both by OSHA and the plumbing code. How then is your friend operating a business in a facility that does not meet those codes.

3. Perhaps your imaginary friend SHOULD go out of business if they are not capitalized well enough to be able to provide a facility that meets the needs of their patients. Is your friends skimping on other health and safety features? Is the space properly cleaned, or is sanitation and disinfecting too expensive for them?

4. "it's the contractor who does the installation that makes sure everything's to code." This claim just made me laugh.
 
2012-04-03 03:39:33 PM  

Thrag: Where on earth does the permit to install a shower actually cost $10,000?


Welcome to Fartbama's Fartmerica
 
2012-04-03 03:47:44 PM  
I found the article WombatControl is completely misrepresenting.

Link (new window)

So someone wanted to add a massage parlor to their business and the local ordinances require such establishments to have a shower. They ended up spending (or I should properly say, they claim to have spent) $10,000 for the entire operation. It does not say the permit costs were $10,000. They didn't have to pay the government $10,000. Somehow to install a shower they managed to pay $10,000. Anyone who has ever remodeled their home knows that just a basic shower doesn't cost $10,000 so there's something we're not getting from these claims. Either they went way overboard with the construction or their contractor seriously ripped them off.

Later, after the shower was built, the law was amended to remove the requirement, so the business owner is upset and saying the government should pay them the $10,000 for the shower they no longer are required to have. I feel for the business owner since regulatory changes can indeed screw people, but the fact that they already received $5,000 from the government in the form of a development grant kinda makes the owner into an ass for taking a $5000 grant for the project and then demanding to get paid back the full $10,000 they spent.
 
2012-04-03 03:50:18 PM  

WombatControl: Thanks to that $10,000 permitting process


Now that I cited the article you are lying about, I just wanted to highlight this line of yours so you can't attempt to weasel out and say you never said it was the the permit that was $10,000.

So, did you really think blatantly lying was a good debate strategy? Did you think nobody would ask for a cite, or find the story on their own? I always wonder what motives one to knowingly (and transparently) lie in service to an ideology.
 
2012-04-03 03:51:46 PM  

Thrag: I found the article WombatControl is completely misrepresenting.

Link (new window)

So someone wanted to add a massage parlor to their business and the local ordinances require such establishments to have a shower. They ended up spending (or I should properly say, they claim to have spent) $10,000 for the entire operation. It does not say the permit costs were $10,000. They didn't have to pay the government $10,000. Somehow to install a shower they managed to pay $10,000. Anyone who has ever remodeled their home knows that just a basic shower doesn't cost $10,000 so there's something we're not getting from these claims. Either they went way overboard with the construction or their contractor seriously ripped them off.

Later, after the shower was built, the law was amended to remove the requirement, so the business owner is upset and saying the government should pay them the $10,000 for the shower they no longer are required to have. I feel for the business owner since regulatory changes can indeed screw people, but the fact that they already received $5,000 from the government in the form of a development grant kinda makes the owner into an ass for taking a $5000 grant for the project and then demanding to get paid back the full $10,000 they spent.


Well done, Sir!
 
2012-04-03 03:57:02 PM  

WombatControl: theknuckler_33: WombatControl: Under President Obama, 15 million jobs have evaporated.

BULLS***!

Don't believe me then. Instead, go to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Look up the figures for 2007 showing the labor force as a percentage of the total population.


Shadow stats!!!! Yup, things are totally worse today than they were on innauguration day. In fact, I totally wish we could go back to those times. The GOP should run on that platform. "Let's go back to December, 2008/January 2009... the gool 'ol days!".

Moran.
 
2012-04-03 04:05:35 PM  

Thrag: WombatControl: Thanks to that $10,000 permitting process

Now that I cited the article you are lying about, I just wanted to highlight this line of yours so you can't attempt to weasel out and say you never said it was the the permit that was $10,000.

So, did you really think blatantly lying was a good debate strategy? Did you think nobody would ask for a cite, or find the story on their own? I always wonder what motives one to knowingly (and transparently) lie in service to an ideology.


Wow, jump to conclusions much?

That's not the story I'm referring to. Very much similar, but not the same. This was a different business in a different town in a different part of the country.

Philip Francis Queeg:

1.) The $10,000 was the cost for the permitting alone, not the cost of actually installing the shower (which is apparently minimal). Again, I don't know the therapist, just the therapist's business advisor.

2.) The shower is not required. It was to be added as an amenity, not something that was required.

3.) Wow, thanks for demonstrating that much-vaunted liberal compassion! If you can't pay exhorbitant fees, apparently it's fark you and go out of business. Again, there are very few businesses that can afford $10,000 to install a shower. And again, this wasn't anything that was required for the business, this was strictly an amenity for the patients. And still, if you want to argue that $10,000 is remotely reasonable to install a shower, go right ahead. But that's not an argument that's going to be seen as particularly rational.

4.) I don't know how it works in your city, but I've done enough remodeling to know that the city inspectors don't do much more than a cursory inspection.

And again, this permitting process has nothing to do with code compliance. That's on top of making sure the shower is installed to code.
 
2012-04-03 04:11:23 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: What is the rationale for a physical therapist to have to pay $10,000 to install a shower - which has to be installed according to OSHA regulations and the plumbing code regardless?



WombatControl: And again, this wasn't anything that was required for the business, this was strictly an amenity for the patients.


Your imaginary story isn't holding together.

WombatControl: And again, this permitting process has nothing to do with code compliance.


Every permitting process is inherently about code compliance.
 
2012-04-03 04:18:18 PM  

Hickory-smoked: Not that I believe all criticism of Obama is based on racial animosity, but there must be some reason the right-wing is fabricating reasons to tar him as a radical. This blog certainly doesn't help.


To be completely fair, they tar every Democratic frontrunner/nominee/speaker/majority leader/president as a a radical.

/ZOMG! Bill/Hillary/Kerry/Obama/Pelosi is the Democratist Democrat that ever Democratted! Socialisms!1! Auschwitz!
 
2012-04-03 04:19:06 PM  

Thrag: So someone wanted to add a massage parlor to their business and the local ordinances require such establishments to have a shower.


Local ordinances eh? Damn that Fartbama sure gets around.
 
2012-04-03 04:23:40 PM  

Thrag: I found the article WombatControl is completely misrepresenting.

Link (new window)

So someone wanted to add a massage parlor to their business and the local ordinances require such establishments to have a shower. They ended up spending (or I should properly say, they claim to have spent) $10,000 for the entire operation. It does not say the permit costs were $10,000. They didn't have to pay the government $10,000. Somehow to install a shower they managed to pay $10,000. Anyone who has ever remodeled their home knows that just a basic shower doesn't cost $10,000 so there's something we're not getting from these claims. Either they went way overboard with the construction or their contractor seriously ripped them off.

Later, after the shower was built, the law was amended to remove the requirement, so the business owner is upset and saying the government should pay them the $10,000 for the shower they no longer are required to have. I feel for the business owner since regulatory changes can indeed screw people, but the fact that they already received $5,000 from the government in the form of a development grant kinda makes the owner into an ass for taking a $5000 grant for the project and then demanding to get paid back the full $10,000 they spent.


Lawlercaust.
 
2012-04-03 04:26:10 PM  

theknuckler_33: WombatControl: theknuckler_33: WombatControl: Under President Obama, 15 million jobs have evaporated.

BULLS***!

Don't believe me then. Instead, go to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Look up the figures for 2007 showing the labor force as a percentage of the total population.

Shadow stats!!!! Yup, things are totally worse today than they were on innauguration day. In fact, I totally wish we could go back to those times. The GOP should run on that platform. "Let's go back to December, 2008/January 2009... the gool 'ol days!".

Moran.


We've been losing jobs for about a decade but somehow it's Obama's fault.

I blame his time machine.
 
2012-04-03 04:38:37 PM  
Philip Francis Queeg:

Ah, I see why that would be confusing - to clarify, there was nothing requiring the therapist to install the shower in the first place. But if the therapist installed the shower, it would have to be installed in compliance with all the necessary regulations. The way I described it would be confusing.

And no, not all permits are "inherently about code compliance." This permit was a pure matter of economic rent seeking. Yes, charging a reasonable amount for the actual inspection process is fine. But you cannot argue with a straight face and in good faith that $10,000 is remotely reasonable for the permits necessary to install a single shower. That's just not a legitimate argument to make.

And that's just one example of rent seeking: there are more like it.

Steering things back to the President, the costs of federal regulatory compliance is huge. $1.75 trillion per year huge. If you want to make the argument that every single one of those regulations is an absolute necessity, go right ahead. But then you have to defend the federal regulations that treat spilled milk as an "oil" spill and make businesses treat a milk spill in the same way they'd treat the Exxon Valdez. Not even Obama's advisors are defending that one.

Regulatory burdens are killing jobs in this country, and the argument that we can't repeal these burdensome regulations isn't an argument that can be made in good faith.
 
2012-04-03 04:42:57 PM  

WombatControl: And that's just one example of rent seeking: there are more like it.


You understand that link has nothing to do with Federal Regulations right?
 
2012-04-03 04:44:24 PM  

WombatControl: And that's just one example of rent seeking: there are more like it.


"You have to have a parking lot big enough to fit your customers"? Fetch my fainting couch! We need to stop this Obama charlatan!
 
2012-04-03 04:45:31 PM  

WombatControl: That's not the story I'm referring to. Very much similar, but not the same. This was a different business in a different town in a different part of the country.


LOL! Yes, I'm sure you'll cite that story and it's $10,000 permit cost any second now.

Why continue lying? Who do you think you are actually fooling?
 
2012-04-03 04:46:01 PM  

WombatControl: That's not the story I'm referring to. Very much similar, but not the same. This was a different business in a different town in a different part of the country.


Ah, the old "My girlfriend lives in Canada. You wouldn't know her" ploy.
 
2012-04-03 04:47:19 PM  

WombatControl: But you cannot argue with a straight face and in good faith that $10,000 is remotely reasonable for the permits necessary to install a single shower.


You still have failed to show that a permit for a single shower actually cost $10,000.
 
2012-04-03 04:48:07 PM  

WombatControl: Philip Francis Queeg:

Ah, I see why that would be confusing - to clarify, there was nothing requiring the therapist to install the shower in the first place. But if the therapist installed the shower, it would have to be installed in compliance with all the necessary regulations. The way I described it would be confusing.

And no, not all permits are "inherently about code compliance." This permit was a pure matter of economic rent seeking. Yes, charging a reasonable amount for the actual inspection process is fine. But you cannot argue with a straight face and in good faith that $10,000 is remotely reasonable for the permits necessary to install a single shower. That's just not a legitimate argument to make.

And that's just one example of rent seeking: there are more like it.

Steering things back to the President, the costs of federal regulatory compliance is huge. $1.75 trillion per year huge. If you want to make the argument that every single one of those regulations is an absolute necessity, go right ahead. But then you have to defend the federal regulations that treat spilled milk as an "oil" spill and make businesses treat a milk spill in the same way they'd treat the Exxon Valdez. Not even Obama's advisors are defending that one.

Regulatory burdens are killing jobs in this country, and the argument that we can't repeal these burdensome regulations isn't an argument that can be made in good faith.


Assuming that your $10000 permit story is true, which is mighty hard I might add, your actual point is not that Obama caused all these problems, right? But since he won't roll back a bunch of regulations wholesale that he had nothing to do with implementing, for this we will call him a terrible failure of a president. Makes total sense. Obama hates America.
 
2012-04-03 04:48:34 PM  

WombatControl: Yes, charging a reasonable amount for the actual inspection process is fine. But you cannot argue with a straight face and in good faith that $10,000 is remotely reasonable for the permits necessary to install a single shower. That's just not a legitimate argument to make.


Yet you keep making this ludicrous, unsupported claim that you yourself admit is third hand and that you have no direct personal knowledge of with a straight face. How is that possible?

Tell you what, Champ. I'm sure the ordinances of the town in question are available online. Go find us the section of the municipal code that requires a $10,000 permit fee for a single shower.
 
2012-04-03 04:51:02 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Yet you keep making this ludicrous, unsupported claim that you yourself admit is third hand and that you have no direct personal knowledge of with a straight face. How is that possible?


His grandmother forwarded it to him, and his grandmother never lies.
 
2012-04-03 04:51:42 PM  

WombatControl: Steering things back to the President, the costs of federal regulatory compliance is huge. $1.75 trillion per year huge.


Perhaps you should re-read your article. The administration is actually working to reduce the cost of regulatory compliance. As to the actual cost, it's interesting that the links to that figure no longer function.
 
2012-04-03 05:12:38 PM  

Incansus: Assuming that your $10000 permit story is true, which is mighty hard I might add, your actual point is not that Obama caused all these problems, right? But since he won't roll back a bunch of regulations wholesale that he had nothing to do with implementing, for this we will call him a terrible failure of a president. Makes total sense. Obama hates America.


No, the point was the regulations have a real cost to businesses. That was one illustration of the principle.

And President Obama has continued to saddle businesses with hundreds of regulations. Both the stimulus bill and ObamaCare contained hundreds of pages of regulatory mandates that end up becoming thousands and thousands of pages of new regulations. If you don't buy that, go to your local federal depository library and pick up a copy of the Federal Register...

As for my story about the $10,000 shower permit, I don't really give two shiats whether the trolls believe it or not - the principle can be illustrated by any number of examples regardless. Plus, the fact that they have to harp upon that demonstrates that they're not really interested in talking about the larger point.

Again, federal regulatory compliance costs $1.75 trillion per year, on top of state, county, and municipal regulations. That's indefensible, especially in a time when businesses are struggling just to make ends meet. Much of those compliance costs are pure economic rent seeking, unnecessary for the protection of anyone or anything, and they're costing people their jobs.
 
2012-04-03 05:18:13 PM  

WombatControl: Incansus: Assuming that your $10000 permit story is true, which is mighty hard I might add, your actual point is not that Obama caused all these problems, right? But since he won't roll back a bunch of regulations wholesale that he had nothing to do with implementing, for this we will call him a terrible failure of a president. Makes total sense. Obama hates America.

No, the point was the regulations have a real cost to businesses. That was one illustration of the principle.

And President Obama has continued to saddle businesses with hundreds of regulations. Both the stimulus bill and ObamaCare contained hundreds of pages of regulatory mandates that end up becoming thousands and thousands of pages of new regulations. If you don't buy that, go to your local federal depository library and pick up a copy of the Federal Register...

As for my story about the $10,000 shower permit, I don't really give two shiats whether the trolls believe it or not - the principle can be illustrated by any number of examples regardless. Plus, the fact that they have to harp upon that demonstrates that they're not really interested in talking about the larger point.

Again, federal regulatory compliance costs $1.75 trillion per year, on top of state, county, and municipal regulations. That's indefensible, especially in a time when businesses are struggling just to make ends meet. Much of those compliance costs are pure economic rent seeking, unnecessary for the protection of anyone or anything, and they're costing people their jobs.


Couldn't find the ordinance, huh? What a shock.

Regulations do cost businesses real money. You know what else? The external costs of business operations cost other people and society in general real money. Pollution costs real money. Unsafe products cost real money. Substandard buildings cost real money. Workers who don't make a living wage cost real money.
 
2012-04-03 05:23:45 PM  

WombatControl: As for my story about the $10,000 shower permit, I don't really give two shiats whether the trolls believe it or not - the principle can be illustrated by any number of examples regardless.


I wanted to build my grandson a treehouse but the building permit required $Texas. I didn't have that much, so I had to slip a roofie into the building inspector's drink else I get hauled away to a FEMA camp.
 
2012-04-03 05:30:47 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Regulations do cost businesses real money. You know what else? The external costs of business operations cost other people and society in general real money. Pollution costs real money. Unsafe products cost real money. Substandard buildings cost real money. Workers who don't make a living wage cost real money.


Does every regulation prevent pollution, prevent unsafe products, prevent unsafe buildings or regulate worker salaries? Do you admit that there is even such a thing as an unnecessary regulation?
 
2012-04-03 05:37:24 PM  

WombatControl: Philip Francis Queeg: Regulations do cost businesses real money. You know what else? The external costs of business operations cost other people and society in general real money. Pollution costs real money. Unsafe products cost real money. Substandard buildings cost real money. Workers who don't make a living wage cost real money.

Does every regulation prevent pollution, prevent unsafe products, prevent unsafe buildings or regulate worker salaries? Do you admit that there is even such a thing as an unnecessary regulation?


I'm sure there are some unnecessary regulations. Do you admit that many regulations are vital and are worth the cost to businesses?

The key is to identify the unneeded ones while maintaining the majority that are in fact needed to protect the public. In that effort you have so far failed rather spectacularly. Instead you have chosen to rely on anecdote to attack the concept of regulation in general.
 
2012-04-03 05:39:42 PM  
I love this guy.

"Look you libtards, it doesn't matter if I based my whole example on a ridiculously transparent lie! What matters is the talking points my bogus story was supposed to prove are still true, and your focus on pointing out that the only support I can give for my talking points is a huge farking lie means you don't want to focus on the real issue which is the how my talking points are axiomatic truths!"
 
2012-04-03 05:53:58 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: I'm sure there are some unnecessary regulations. Do you admit that many regulations are vital and are worth the cost to businesses?

The key is to identify the unneeded ones while maintaining the majority that are in fact needed to protect the public. In that effort you have so far failed rather spectacularly. Instead you have chosen to rely on anecdote to attack the concept of regulation in general.


So, there are some unnecessary regulations. Glad we agree on that. Now let's narrow things down a little more:

Do you believe that there are regulations that exist solely for the purpose of economic rent seeking?

To your question, I believe that some economic regulations are beneficial to both business and society. For instance, regulations that enforce market transparency are perfectly legitimate. Same with reasonable municipal zoning rules - I don't really want a slaughterhouse next to my apartment, thankyewverymuch. So yes, we agree that some regulation is necessary.
 
2012-04-03 05:58:22 PM  

WombatControl: Philip Francis Queeg: I'm sure there are some unnecessary regulations. Do you admit that many regulations are vital and are worth the cost to businesses?

The key is to identify the unneeded ones while maintaining the majority that are in fact needed to protect the public. In that effort you have so far failed rather spectacularly. Instead you have chosen to rely on anecdote to attack the concept of regulation in general.

So, there are some unnecessary regulations. Glad we agree on that. Now let's narrow things down a little more:

Do you believe that there are regulations that exist solely for the purpose of economic rent seeking?

To your question, I believe that some economic regulations are beneficial to both business and society. For instance, regulations that enforce market transparency are perfectly legitimate. Same with reasonable municipal zoning rules - I don't really want a slaughterhouse next to my apartment, thankyewverymuch. So yes, we agree that some regulation is necessary.


Sure some regulations come about because corporations lobby for regulations that amount to rent seeking to seek a competitive advantage. However you fail miserably when you try and claim that building codes are an example of such regulation.
 
2012-04-03 06:14:00 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Sure some regulations come about because corporations lobby for regulations that amount to rent seeking to seek a competitive advantage. However you fail miserably when you try and claim that building codes are an example of such regulation.


I don't claim that building codes are de facto unnecessary.

Let's run with your argument here (and what you described is something called regulatory capture - a very important concept.) We'll use a hypothetical:

A powerful local contractor runs the majority of construction in a town. That local contractor notices that his competitors are using a new plumbing system that makes it much faster and cheaper to plumb a home, and they are undercutting him in price. The contractor conspires with the town government to modify the building code to ban the cheaper plumbing system on the basis that the cheaper system is not "safe." In fact, the cheaper plumbing system is just as safe as the more expensive one.

Would you say that regulation is a good thing or not? Does the fact that the regulation is in the form of a local building code make it a good regulation?
 
2012-04-03 06:16:40 PM  

WombatControl: Under President Obama, 15 million jobs have evaporated. The official unemployment rate is 8.3%, but that's an underestimate of total labor underutilization.


Yes, but everyone here knows that trend was started well before he came into office, and ended within a year of him taking office. Bush sliced a giant wound on the enoomy. Doctor Obama ran himself in and stopped the bleeding and you're sitting there saying "Tsk tsk, he lost a looooot of blood on your watch. Why should you get to play doctor? Only a terrible doctor would let that much blood go."
 
2012-04-03 06:20:45 PM  

Thrag: I love this guy.

"Look you libtards, it doesn't matter if I based my whole example on a ridiculously transparent lie! What matters is the talking points my bogus story was supposed to prove are still true, and your focus on pointing out that the only support I can give for my talking points is a huge farking lie means you don't want to focus on the real issue which is the how my talking points are axiomatic truths!"


Or to put a finer point on it...


www.famouspictures.org
 
2012-04-03 06:23:25 PM  

WombatControl: 1.) The $10,000 was the cost for the permitting alone, not the cost of actually installing the shower (which is apparently minimal). Again, I don't know the therapist, just the therapist's business advisor.


So you make decisions based on third-hand information you can't verify from a source that might be biased. Good to know.
 
2012-04-03 06:25:36 PM  

WombatControl: A powerful local contractor runs the majority of construction in a town. That local contractor notices that his competitors are using a new plumbing system that makes it much faster and cheaper to plumb a home, and they are undercutting him in price. The contractor conspires with the town government to modify the building code to ban the cheaper plumbing system on the basis that the cheaper system is not "safe." In fact, the cheaper plumbing system is just as safe as the more expensive one.

Would you say that regulation is a good thing or not? Does the fact that the regulation is in the form of a local building code make it a good regulation?


Yes, and if we could have railroads made of this special alloy, we could move things above the heads of the common plebs but damned government won't let us. Let me write a 200 page monologue about it.

/rand
 
2012-04-03 06:25:36 PM  

WombatControl: Philip Francis Queeg: Sure some regulations come about because corporations lobby for regulations that amount to rent seeking to seek a competitive advantage. However you fail miserably when you try and claim that building codes are an example of such regulation.

I don't claim that building codes are de facto unnecessary.

Let's run with your argument here (and what you described is something called regulatory capture - a very important concept.) We'll use a hypothetical:

A powerful local contractor runs the majority of construction in a town. That local contractor notices that his competitors are using a new plumbing system that makes it much faster and cheaper to plumb a home, and they are undercutting him in price. The contractor conspires with the town government to modify the building code to ban the cheaper plumbing system on the basis that the cheaper system is not "safe." In fact, the cheaper plumbing system is just as safe as the more expensive one.

Would you say that regulation is a good thing or not? Does the fact that the regulation is in the form of a local building code make it a good regulation?


It possibly is a good regulation. Is the hypothetical system leaching sewage into the soil? Has the hypothetical system been hypothetical tested to show that it is hypothetically safe and hypothetically durable?

Let's hypothetically consider that the other contractors know that the system is substandard but it raises their profitability on projects. Is that hypothetical any more or less legitimate than your fantasy?

Hypotheticals make a horrid basis to discuss policy and regulation. Your reliance on them rather than actual facts and specifics may explain why you come to so many erroneous conclusions.
 
2012-04-03 06:26:35 PM  

WombatControl: Philip Francis Queeg: Sure some regulations come about because corporations lobby for regulations that amount to rent seeking to seek a competitive advantage. However you fail miserably when you try and claim that building codes are an example of such regulation.

I don't claim that building codes are de facto unnecessary.

Let's run with your argument here (and what you described is something called regulatory capture - a very important concept.) We'll use a hypothetical:

A powerful local contractor runs the majority of construction in a town. That local contractor notices that his competitors are using a new plumbing system that makes it much faster and cheaper to plumb a home, and they are undercutting him in price. The contractor conspires with the town government to modify the building code to ban the cheaper plumbing system on the basis that the cheaper system is not "safe." In fact, the cheaper plumbing system is just as safe as the more expensive one.

Would you say that regulation is a good thing or not? Does the fact that the regulation is in the form of a local building code make it a good regulation?


Is this something that has actually happened? Or is this another of your fever dreams? It's a fair question, since most building codes are fairly uniform on a national scale, with relatively minor adjustments addressing local concerns. And once again, why are you using local building codes to illustrate federal over regulation under the Obama administration?
 
2012-04-03 06:48:23 PM  

WombatControl: We'll use a hypothetical:


My aunt just grew testicles. Would you agree that this makes her my uncle?

/about as well supported as yours
 
2012-04-03 07:01:21 PM  

WombatControl: Again, federal regulatory compliance costs $1.75 trillion per year


Your figure comes from an advocacy group based on figures from 2002-2008. Now who was in office during that time? Obviously this is Obama's fault.
 
2012-04-03 07:26:51 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: It possibly is a good regulation. Is the hypothetical system leaching sewage into the soil? Has the hypothetical system been hypothetical tested to show that it is hypothetically safe and hypothetically durable?


Assume that it's been proven safe in other jurisdictions and has been widely used elsewhere for some time.

Let's hypothetically consider that the other contractors know that the system is substandard but it raises their profitability on projects. Is that hypothetical any more or less legitimate than your fantasy?

Hypotheticals make a horrid basis to discuss policy and regulation. Your reliance on them rather than actual facts and specifics may explain why you come to so many erroneous conclusions.


Oh really? Because that's the method that law schools have been using since the 19th Century to teach critical reasoning. Would you kindly inform them that they've been doing it wrong for almost 200 years?
 
2012-04-03 07:38:41 PM  

WombatControl: Philip Francis Queeg: It possibly is a good regulation. Is the hypothetical system leaching sewage into the soil? Has the hypothetical system been hypothetical tested to show that it is hypothetically safe and hypothetically durable?

Assume that it's been proven safe in other jurisdictions and has been widely used elsewhere for some time.

Let's hypothetically consider that the other contractors know that the system is substandard but it raises their profitability on projects. Is that hypothetical any more or less legitimate than your fantasy?

Hypotheticals make a horrid basis to discuss policy and regulation. Your reliance on them rather than actual facts and specifics may explain why you come to so many erroneous conclusions.

Oh really? Because that's the method that law schools have been using since the 19th Century to teach critical reasoning. Would you kindly inform them that they've been doing it wrong for almost 200 years?


You think the Socratic method is just making shiat up? Fantastic.
 
2012-04-03 09:37:42 PM  
Who greenlights this derpshiat?

img1.fark.net
 
2012-04-04 01:35:29 AM  

DozeNutz: Yeah, Obama sucks. Ran on Hope and Change, got neither. Increased spending like a mofo. Indefinite detention is not only okay now, its okay to do it to American citizens. You thought Bush was bad with wars? Obama took it to the next level... wars without congressional approval. NDAA, unconstitutional healthcare mandate. They called it healthcare, but in reality its mandatory health insurance. What exactly changed? Seems the Hope and Change he was running on, was YOUR vision of what YOU thought Hope and Change was going to be. He covers his dick that most Farkers suck on with copious amounts of BBQ sauce, that they do not seem to notice that its a dick they are sucking. Their only response to legit criticism of Obama, and the hypocrisy of his actions/policy, is to say "well Republicans are worse!"... Then actually spew DNC talking points as if they have a brain of their own.


The Republicans are worse. A lot worse. Exponential levels of worse. If you think Obama is a turd, well, the Republicans are infected, bloody, explosive diarrhea with extra corn.

Before you work out the disputes between your fellow survivors inside the farmhouse, first you deal with the hoard of flesh eating zombies pounding on the doors and smashing the windows.

Otherwise the zombies eat us all. That's your choice. Sucks, but... there it is.
 
2012-04-04 02:00:44 AM  
Wait, Obama is black?
 
2012-04-05 07:39:25 PM  
Who the hell would build a Physical Therapy facility without a shower? That's like building a gym without a shower.
 
Displayed 45 of 245 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report